JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

Revision petition herein inter alia is to set aside impugned order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi whereby application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff would contend that plaintiff filed a suit for separate possession by metes and bounds in respect of 1/4th share each of petitioner/ plaintiffs in the Gair Mumkin land measuring 1 Kanal 14 Marlas bearing Khewat No.5081//4581, Khatoni No.6023, comprising Khasra No.305//26 (1-14) situated at village Sainipura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, as per Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 read with mutation No.29970; with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent/defendants from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, gifting or otherwise creating charge of third person on the specific portion of the suit land noted above or exceeding their share in the suit land and also from raising construction over any specific portion of the suit land and also from changing the nature of the suit land without partition detrimental to the rights and interests of petitioners. He would further contend that mutation of inheritance of share of respondents No.1 and 2 on the death of their father-Baljeet Singh has not so far been sanctioned. Aforesaid suit land is joint between the parties and its partition has not been taken place by orders from any court of competent jurisdiction, though petitioners requested respondents to do so. He would also contend that on 10.02.2023, respondents with the help of some labourers started making measurement in order to raise construction on the specific portion and exceeding their shares in the joint land with mala fide intent to grab valuable portion of joint suit land abutting main road. Petitioners were threatened upon their resistance to the aforesaid act of defendants.

2.1. Learned counsel would further argue that application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by plaintiffs was declined vide order dated 15.02.2023. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs filed first appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2023 directing respondents to restrain themselves from changing nature of suit property by raising construction thereupon till decision on aforesaid application.

2.2. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner-plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to report about existing state of affairs prevailing at the spot alongwith photographs. Vide impugned order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P- 6), learned trial Court dismissed aforesaid application. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Heard.

4. The reasons for dismissal of petitioner's application given in the impugned order inter alia are as under:-

"By virtue of present application, applicant/plaintiffs have sought appointment of LC so as to report about existing state of affairs at the spot. Plaintiffs have approached this court seeking a decree for separate possession by way of partition alleging that defendants have raised construction on the specific portion of suit land near main road and that too over and above their actual share in the suit land. As discernible from written statement filed by defendants, portion shown with red colour in the site plan annexed with written statement has been alleged to be in the possession of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs have denied said assertion of aforesaid red colour portion shown in the site plan annexed with the written statement being in their possession. Thus, appointment of LC has been sought by applicant/plain